Dangerous Times

This email from Joe Lieberman found itself in my inbox:

I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to endorse a Republican candidate for President. And if this were an ordinary time and an ordinary election, I probably would not have done so. But this is no ordinary time -- and this is no ordinary election -- and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.

In this critical election, no one should let party lines be a barrier to choosing the person we believe is best qualified to lead our nation forward. The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the Presidency.

Of course, left unmentioned here is that a huge proportion of the great "problems that confront us" are the direct results of the Bush/McCain/Lieberman effort to replace traditional internationalism with the daft "rogue state rollback" that McCain campaign on during the 2000 primary. There was at least a point in time when George W. Bush seemed to recognize the folly of this, but it's always been McCain's passion.

Comments

Well, let's be fair:

He called for a policy of ''rogue state rollback,'' not simply to contain such governments but to drive them from power by helping opposition groups.

(emphasis added)

What he campaigned on in 2000 is not responsible for a huge proportion of our problems. It's what he's supported since then - namely the Bush doctrine of preventive war - that's caused the Iraq mess.

Posted by Marius Key | December 27, 2007 3:14 PM

Of course, left unmentioned here is that a huge proportion of the great "problems that confront us" are the direct results of the Bush/McCain/Lieberman effort to replace traditional internationalism with the daft "rogue state rollback" that McCain campaign

But isn't "internationalism" the main reason why we ended up where we did on 9/11/01? Seems 9/11 was a clear manifestation of the failures of Internationalism.. which was, after all, diplomacy which pretty much turned a blind eye towards oppressed peoples in favor of 'realistic' diplomacy (to borrow James Baker's characterization of it). Those being oppressed under this internationalism saw us as friendly toward their oppressors and their anger and radicalism grew under that foreign policy approach until it boiled over in a big way on 9/11.

Seems GeorgeW Bush correctly saw the failure of that internationalism approach, and changed course to turn up the heat pressuring our former 'allies' like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, making it clear that the old wink-and-nod acceptance of their non-democratic policies was no longer acceptable. About that change in policy, President Bush and John McCain were right.

Posted by EruditeHillbilly | December 27, 2007 3:19 PM

has anyone told you that opinions are like noses, everybody has one but no one is interested in yours.

Posted by Vicki Hampton | December 27, 2007 3:20 PM

Quick, if Lieberman, the Israeli delegate, is for the republicans, we better vote democrat.

It means that Israel is trying to sway public opinion to keep America fighting in the Middle East. McCain is the biggest supporters of the Iraq policy.

Posted by zinc | December 27, 2007 3:30 PM

I despise Lieberman. Support a militaristic, warmonger for president? Truly, Lieberman hates the United States and wants to destroy it.

If a Republican is elected in November 2008, I estimate a 25% chance that this country will not last my and MY's lifetime (2050). If a Democrat is elected it drops to about 10%. The Democrats are better, but they too are not adequately, if at all, addressing the problems that truly threaten the existence of the United States: climate change, the peaking of fossil fuel production in the world, and the unsustainability of the exponential growth economic model.

Posted by blah2 | December 27, 2007 3:43 PM

Somebody wants another shot at VP.

Posted by Velvet Elvis | December 27, 2007 4:00 PM

"Pressuring our allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia"? Like, when?

Let me add that, when Katie Couric asked the Presidential candidates which country they regarded as "the most dangerous on Earth", McCain gave the stupidest-sounding reply of the bunch -- rambling fuzzily on and on about "the world Islamofascist threat" and how we need to Resist It Militarily to the end, without providing any suggestion at all as to HOW we might do so other than by just rattling our swords endlessly. Andrew Ferguson's 2000 "Weekly Standard" piece on McCain is, unfortunately, correct -- he's every bit as mentally lazy and self-indulgent as Bush. And yet he's also the only GOP candidate (except for the spectacularly loony Ron Paul) who seems to solidly oppose the idea that the proper way to fight is to immediately turn the US government into a copy of the Spanish Inquisition. What a choice.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 27, 2007 4:06 PM

And, as The Last Honest Man, an embodiment of principle, Joe also resigned his committee chairmanship. No? Well, Harry Reid's too weak to kick him out of the caucus, and I'd rather hand Dead Eye the casting vote than have that fucker still there.

The only question remaining: is there a GOP candidate among the current leading contenders who JoeHo wouldn't endorse at the convention next summer? (Don't say 'Ron Paul': a profusion of internet gobshites doesn't count.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 27, 2007 4:16 PM

"Pressuring our allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia"? Like, when?

The next hundred-billion-dollar sale of advanced weaponry to our "former allies" won't be wrapped in a pretty bow, as had been the usual custom.

And the next time the Prince shows up at the White House, the President will kiss him, but no tongues this time.

That'll show 'em.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 27, 2007 4:24 PM

Oh, if only one of the Democratic candidates had asked Lieberman to endorse him/her - then this would be an "ordinary time" and an "ordinary election".

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | December 27, 2007 5:11 PM

"Pressuring our allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia"? Like, when?

Like here

Financial Times quoted Mishaal Abdullah, an engineering student, as saying: "We want to take part in decision-making and if we vote we can then hold officials accountable if they don't do a good job". (The elections are a modest concession by the ruling Al-Saud family to calls for political change. They also follow pressure for openness from the US, which now sees the lack of democracy among its Arab friends as a key source of radicalism

and here

Many Saudi officials, annoyed with U.S. pressure to cease funding Islamist and terrorist groups, find Beijing's no-questions-asked policies attractive.

Similarly, US pressure forced elections in Egypt, and Condi Rice very publicly cancelled a visit with Egypt over the jailing of political opposition leader Ayman Nour.

You can reasonably argue that the US should be putting on even more pressure, but this kind of pressure was not there before, and in Saudi Arabia for example, if moderate elements were removed from power, there is a real risk the islamic radicals would fill the vacuum. So US pressure is somewhat hamstrung there for the time being

Again, pressures did not occur under the internationalist "see no evil" approach to foreign policy. And regarding dependence on Europeans to do the right thing, note that Europe is the major trading partner in both Sudan and Iran. Judging by their actions in Sudan and Iran, many of our European 'allies' appear willing to sell Western civilization down the river for a few Euros.

Posted by EruditeHillbilly | December 27, 2007 5:15 PM

I'm sure the sting of having Condi "very publicly" cancel a visit to Egypt [gasp!] will be more than salved by the $1.3 billion in military aid we're going to be supplying Mubarak in 2008.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 27, 2007 5:24 PM

I'm sure the sting of having Condi "very publicly" cancel a visit to Egypt [gasp!] will be more than salved by the $1.3 billion in military aid we're going to be supplying Mubarak in 2008

Those weapons sales are a counterbalance in the region to the growing Iranian threat. Note how both Saudi Arabia and Egypt critized Hezbollah in 2006 on their raids and bombings inside Israel. Those statements gave the Israelis political cover to do what they needed to do inside Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah at that time.

Baby steps for sure. But with this decided change in foreign policy led by Bush and McCain, it's certainly no more "business as usual" as it was before.

Posted by EruditeHillbilly | December 27, 2007 5:33 PM

"Moderate elements"? "Counterbalance"? "Baby steps"? That all sounds awfully suspiciously "realist," don't you think?

it's certainly no more "business as usual" as it was before

Yes and no. The "Invade and occupy for--well, just for the hell of it, really" school of foreign policy certainly has made for a radical departure from previous decades.

On the other hand, Mubarak's government has gotten more, not less, oppressive in recent years, and we'll be "pressuring" him with almost $2 billion in weaponry. Just like in the bad old days of realist internationalism. "See no evil," my ass.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 27, 2007 5:45 PM

The "Invade and occupy for--well, just for the hell of it, really" school of foreign policy certainly has made for a radical departure from previous decades

Why bring up Afghanistan?

Posted by EruditeHillbilly | December 27, 2007 5:52 PM

Christ almighty. Now we can't "play partisan politics with the Presidency"? Democracy ain't "playing politics". How about I'll vote for whomever I damn well please, and you do the same, Joe, but without the condescension and unconcealed contempt? At the risk of "playing politics", can I have my country back please?

Posted by rapoli | December 27, 2007 8:30 PM

"Similarly, US pressure forced elections in Egypt, and Condi Rice very publicly cancelled a visit with Egypt over the jailing of political opposition leader Ayman Nour."

Yay, a rigged election! Progress has been made.

Posted by Reality Man | December 27, 2007 8:57 PM

Yup; nothing says "democracy" like totally, ridiculously transparent rigged elections. But then, it's rather hard to understand what kind of pressure E.H. thinks Bush could put on Saudi Arabia or Egypt anyway, if the only alternatives to control by their current tyrannies are "Islamic radicals" and "the growing Iranian threat".

You'll notice, of course, that what I'm saying is that there's very little ANYONE could do to improve the situation in those countries. I will say, though, that it took real imagination for the Bushites to make our overall military and diplomatic situations as much WORSE as their Iraq adventure has managed to do.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 27, 2007 10:09 PM

And as for Israel "neutralizing Hezbollah" inside Lebanon: again, where? They're more popular inside Lebanon now han they were before the Israeli attack, which isn't quite what Ehud Olmert (and his predictably befuddled advisors in the Bush Administration) were planning on.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 27, 2007 10:13 PM

"You'll notice, of course, that what I'm saying is that there's very little ANYONE could do to improve the situation in those countries. I will say, though, that it took real imagination for the Bushites to make our overall military and diplomatic situations as much WORSE as their Iraq adventure has managed to do.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 27, 2007 10:09 PM"

In the short term, definitely. However, while many terrorists are well-educated, they do come societies that have lacked economic mobility for generations, in addition to the Arab Middle East being the one area on Earth that is unequivocally less free than it was, say, 30-40 years ago. Castro, Che, Deng Xiaoping, Ho Chi Minh, etc. were all well-educated (the latter two having even been schooled in Paris), but coming from societies with a large portion of the population being poor helped in part to account for their turns towards communism (Che famously started his drift towards Marxism after traveling through Latin America, as portrayed in the Motorcycle Diaries). If we were interested in doing things to help improve the economic lot of Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, we could do things like end our farm subsidies so that we didn't dump cheap crops on the international market and thus allow local farmers to compete and we could also open our domestic market to things like textiles made in Muslim countries. However, we don't do that. Anti-American terrorism is popular when you combine bad foreign policy with a society and economy that doesn't provide the average person hope for a better life through hard work (unemployment, for instance, is high even among literate and educated Egyptians. Nasser's focus on education and Arab socialism just meant that there was a large pool of young Egyptians who could read and were promised a better life but couldn't find work once they left school).

Posted by Reality Man | December 28, 2007 3:56 AM

Without getting into it.

McCain is an angry man who wants to beat the shit out of someone. And it may not really make much difference who.

As long as that's understood the rest falls right into place.

Posted by cal1942 | December 28, 2007 5:49 AM

But isn't "internationalism" the main reason why we ended up where we did on 9/11/01? Seems 9/11 was a clear manifestation of the failures of Internationalism.. which was, after all, diplomacy which pretty much turned a blind eye towards oppressed peoples in favor of 'realistic' diplomacy (to borrow James Baker's characterization of it).

You do realize that our 'coalition of the willing' required us to take a 'realistic' diplomacy approach (Angola, anyone?). Are you saying that calling on a corrupt gov't as an ally is better than turning a blind eye to their oppressed peoples? That's breathlessly stupid.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 28, 2007 8:47 AM

"there's very little ANYONE could do to improve the situation in those countries"

How about talking with them, trading with them, engaging them. Perhaps the europeans and chinese are interested in something more than trade. Its this "quaint" and "old europe" thing called diplomacy. It can be especially useful when you've used up all your troops and credibility.

Posted by chuckdps | December 28, 2007 2:03 PM